Marginalizing your base is the wrong approach.

[madfloridian]

Marginalizing the base and the anti-war vote is not a good idea. I remember one day on this forum when Single voters, African Americans, Lower income voters, and 18-29 year olds were discounted all in one swoop. Why?

Someone said they are already assumed to be voting Democratic, so we don't need to worry about them. That is a huge mistake.

Actually, I find myself very insulted when people talk about those who are new to politics in such condescending tones as "naive", "one-issue people who just don't understand the game", and "dilettante-like. "

It is people who are new to a system who bring the new ideas, the fresh thoughts, the inspiration. In my mind this is one of the most dangerous things to do this election, to leave out the new guys in favor of the status quo.

An example in part: Howard Dean is accepted throughout the world as a speaker and debater. While most here at least credit him with the new voices for our party, many feel it necessary to keep his supporters in their place with certain terms. I do not need to use them, you know them.

I have also seen this approach of condescension used on Kucinich and Clark folks at times. I think insulting Nader is a mistake as well. It does no good and it makes him determined. Dean dialogued with him in a pretty respectful way.

I also take issue with folks "supposedly" former Dean supporters who come here and bash Kerry. It is one thing to take issue, it is another to insult. They make it uncomfortable here for those of us who want to continue to post Dean's accomplishments and not bash. This board forbids discussion of what goes on elsewhere, which I guess is the right approach. Let's just leave it with the astroturf definition, part of which is pretending to be what you are not for nefarious purposes. This goes on with supporters of others as well.

You do not make fun of your base, and you do not marginalize them as unimportant. It is too dangerous.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. In a word....

YAWN

[madfloridian]

3. Ok. Yawn then.

Thanks so much.

[Liberal Veteran]

10. I'm just getting a bit tired of all the internecine warfare....

....coupled with the hand-wringing from the people who are bent out of shape that Kerry is not "liberal enough".

I don't think our attention needs to be divided or diverted from the main goal of recapturing the White House from the loser currently occupying it.

Maybe you are saying the same thing to an extent, but there was also some fingerpointing going on in there.

[Tomee450]

13. I agree with you.

There are more and more African Americans who are resentful of the Democrats whom they believe are taking their votes for granted. I heard a black speaker say that perhaps African American should sit out an election. I don't agree with that but his remarks indicate just how unhappy African Americans are becoming with the party that they have so long supported.

[madfloridian]

22. Thanks. This board assumes the support of those 4 groups.

It is a dangerous thing to do.

[Kanary]

33. Actually, Louis Farrakan said that a few months back....

This coming election is the last one he says they will cast a vote for the Dems, unless the Party shapes up (not his words, obviously........ he's more eloquent)

Other groups quietly left years ago. Funny thing...... most people don't appreciate being ignored, and used.

Kanary
edited to say he may not have been the only one saying it, but I saw him on C-Span when he spoke, so I know of his speech. There may very well be others.

[Tomee450]

38. I didn't know about Farrakhan

It was another African American whose name I cannot recall at the moment who made the suggestion. Perhaps more people are beginning to think along those lines.

[Kanary]

39. Yes, it's being said more and more

And the posts here on DU that bash anyone with questions or criticisms about Kerry and tell them to get lost, are adding to the depletion of the Party. I'm wondering if this is one of those historical turning points where another party actually rises up.

If you happen to think of the other person's name, I'd be interested in knowing it. I'm sure there are many.

And, thanks for correcting my misspelling of Farrakhan's name..... I didn't think it looked quite right. :hi:

Kanary, who will now go look to see if she can find a transcript of Farrakhan's speech.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. You don't have questions or constructive criticisms

most of your posts concerning Kerry are miscategorizations of his stands and opinions based on..well...what you think whether there are facts behind it or not.

BTW, Farrakhan is hardly a Dem supporter.

[mitchum]

79. I would be surprised if Calypso Louis has ever voted Democrat...

since he is a socially conservative, anti-Semitic, racial separatist. I don't think that the party really needs to be taking advice from that murderous conman.

[Kahuna]

41. How do you know that? Got anything to back it up with?

I know that the NAACP and Tucker Carlson say so. That doesn't make it true. They have never provided anything but their own word that blacks are growing weary of the Democrats. So, I wish just once, someone would point to some facts to support that premise....Just once.

[Kanary]

66. Then you could have read post # 33.

Now, that wasn't so hard to do, was it?

That's "just once".

You're welcome.

Kanary

[mitchum]

80. And you can read post #79

[Q]

7. I wonder if you'll 'yawn'...

...when a Republican gets back in office in 2008? Or if Bush* somehow pulls off a 'win' in November?

- The base IS the party. For the DLCers to tell them to 'f**k off' until some other more opportune time could be a fatal mistake. Most everyone on the left will vote for Kerry THIS TIME...but you won't see the same guarantees NEXT TIME...once Bush* is out of office.

[WilliamPitt]

9. See posts 4 and 6

[Liberal Veteran]

11. And all the negativity from the "more liberal than thou" types helps?

I grow weary of it.

[madfloridian]

17. I grow weary of people who act like I don't belong in the party.

Because I opposed the war. Because I speak out on what I believe. Because I see nothing wrong with the word liberal, though I am more moderate.

Hey, see what you are doing to moderates?

[Liberal Veteran]

26. Oh for god's sake! 99% of us here opposed the war and still do.

That's exactly what I mean by the "more liberal than thou" types who think that because some of us understand that Kerry can't undo what was done last year is not the same as being pro-war and trying to deal with the political realities is not an attempt to alienate or marginalize you.

[madfloridian]

28. You are saying I am a "more liberal than thou" type."

I am a moderate in almost all areas. If I feel that I am not welcome here or in the party, then that should tell you something.

I am not that liberal, being raised in a southern fundamentalist church, being raised among those values.

I highly resent the way I am being labeled as unimportant because I opposed the war, the NCLB, the tax cuts, the privatization of Medicare and Social Security.

Yes, it is happening. You can get mad at me all you want, but I am being deemed as unimportant to the party now.

Kerry can not undo, Edwards can not undo, but they can say more than "I stand behind my vote." Sorry. That is how many feel.

I will vote for Kerry, I have donated to Kerry.

[WilliamPitt]

31. "I am being deemed as unimportant to the party now"

By whom?

[Liberal Veteran]

32. And you know what? If they said EXACTLY what you wanted them to say.

There would be another contingent saying "Oh woe is me! Kerry is taking taking my vote for granted and I am deemed as unimportant!"

That's exactly the point I am trying to make with all this handwringing from all sides who feel like their own pet issue isn't being addressed the way they like.

It's been just one damn thing after another. If it not "Kerry's a corporate shill!" or "Kerry's a warmonger!" or "Kerry's going to undermine abortion rights!" or "Kerry won't stand up for gay rights!", it's something else and each side is feeling "put upon" and taken for granted.

There's just no end to it and it boots nothing in the long run to bemoan the fact that Kerry isn't a sock puppet to anyone particular contingent. The nature of politics as they stand in this day is for a candidate to run to the center during the final months of an election. All candidates do it and it's because they are trying to appeal to the WIDEST possible group without totally alienating the base. A candidate that is seen as too extreme on EITHER side of the political aisle will be a major turn off to those in the middle who are can't be pigeonholed so easily.

And don't presume to lecture me on moderation. I, too grew up in a fundamentalist household. I don't claim to have the market cornered in either moderation or liberalism. The fact is the only thing I can claim is that I am not a conservative.

[Kahuna]

44. Thank you. All that whining has been turning voters off to Dems..

for years.

[Kahuna]

42. If that happens it will because of whiney so called Dems...

shouting so loud to have their own agendas heard and addressed, that once again, the voters won't know what we stand for. That's the problem. There are so many different factions shouting to be heard and addressed at the same time, nobody can be heard. Too many damned chiefs and not enough indians.

[madfloridian]

51. Well, it would be easier if we had a chief then. Right?

This is my point, that the voices being listened to are the more corporate, right wing ones than the ones who were once considered the base of the party.

Getting upset at people who think issues matter may make you feel better, but discounting the people who feel that way is a mistake.

[Kanary]

94. As in whiney African Americans? Whiney Native Americans?

Whiney gays?

Whiney Native Hawaiians?

Whiney single mothers and battered women, trying to survive?

Whiney Latinos?

Whiney disabled people?

Whiney Seniors?

Whiney soldiers, tired of being shot for lies?

Whiney teachers, with no resources to actually teach?

Whiney anyone seeking justice?

Let's see, that leaves..........

Oh yeah......

You.......

Kanary

[Jim Sagle]

2. I agree, except for Nader. He's a Republican.

[depakid]

67. yeah right

Nader really stands for all things Republican. :eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

4. The base?

There is no single description to encompass the voter bloc one might call the 'Anti-War Left. They are the people who were against the Iraq invasion from day one, the people who know the 'War on Terra' is an advertisement for incalculable profiteering by corporations in the business of war. They are the people who see corporate supremacy in America as a cancer affecting the air, water, soil and soul of the nation and the world entire.

They are also the most undependable voter bloc in the country. They are nobody's base, because they hold principle above all else when it comes to politics. They will not cast a ballot for someone who has acted against the principles which are at the core of that anti-war sentiment. If a candidate appears to have gone against those principles, that bloc will bolt.

[madfloridian]

5. Right, I should have said "assumed base". Good catch.

:hi:

Assuming a base is wrong.

[WilliamPitt]

6. I'm not sure 'assumed' fixes your premise

If you accept my premise that the 'Anti-War Left' is an unbreliable voter bloc, then your theme about dismissing them is out of joint. One cannot dismiss what never existed in the first place.

[madfloridian]

14. Not sure of your point.

I just said the anti-war vote, meaning those whose votes would hinge a lot on that issue. Oh, yes, Will, there are a lot. I don't count us among them, but there are many.

I could have said the anti-war voices just as well. I think I made my point, though.

I don't want to play semantic games, as I think I made it clear. I mentioned 4 distinct groups as well. I did not say anything for sure, just warned that this could be a dangerous thing to do.

Guess what, we are losing our drug coverage. The money is going to pay for the war (well we know better, don't we...it is lining corporate pockets.) Seniors are no longer treated with respect in hospitals in some areas, even if they are insured now as we are. Why? If a doctor starts treating them, how does he stop if they are no long covered?

The war is a far bigger issue than just soldiers dying. It is probably destroying the economy.

Again, it is not wise to make fun of those who opposed the war.

[WilliamPitt]

18. "it is not wise to make fun of those who opposed the war"

Can you demonstrate where this has happened? Provide a link?

Was fun made of people *because* they opposed the war?

Or was fun made of them because they said/did something that opened them to mockery aside from their stance?

[madfloridian]

25. Will Pitt, you know what I mean.

They are being told to shut up, do what you're told. Quit nitpicking about the IWR. You of all people know what I mean.

I am not going to play word games with you. I have done enough of that.

I am voting for Kerry. We donated to Kerry. I am not criticizing Kerry in this post. I am criticizing the people who do this, and the Democratics for not embracing us.

[WilliamPitt]

27. I'm not trying to start a beef with you, mf

We've gone around that maypole too many times. Nor am I questioning your voting intentions.

You asserted something about 'the base' which I thought missed the mark.

You talked about 'being made fun of,' something I haven't seen.

Perhaps you won't get confronted with 'word games' in the future if you use language with more precision. Just a suggestion.

[mike_c]

21. but you've just dismissed them as being too fey to merit...

...attention. Besides, the war issue is a bellwether as much as it is a single over-riding determinant of voting from the left. Focusing solely on the antiwar issue as a means of dismissing the left is disingenuous. In abandoning the broader concerns of the left-- including the antiwar movement-- the Democatic party has abdicated its role as a real opposition party (in the strict sense of advocating a real oppostion platform rather than a slightly different flavor of the same old same old).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I am anti war and anti corporation

like my husband, I plan to keep close tabs on President Kerry, and will very likely work hard to get third party people in the House and Senate in the future. But not now. With Kerry as president, there is a chance we can reclaim this country for the people. With Bush, there is no hope this country will survive. People like me will be labelled 'terrorists' and locked up with the key thrown away.

[Mandate My Ass]

20. Same here

I am voting for Kerry even though it goes against my own personal interests and very much against principle. I will protest Kerry even more than I've protested Bush if it appears as though my trust has been violated. I'm quite tired of being dismissed as the far left fringe. I've not budged an inch leftward but the tent feels mighty small and unwelcoming these days. In fact, by DLC standards, I might not even be inside it.

[Tomee450]

36. I agree

I will be voting for Kerry but am not that happy for having to do so.

"I've not budged an inch leftward but the tent feels mighty small and unwelcoming these days. In fact, by DLC standards, I might not even be inside it.

Exactly the way I feel.

[Malva Zebrina]

55. right

and when enough of them bolt,one day they realize they have become a bloc.

and when they realize they have become a bloc, they will organize as a party or become the rumblings or stirrings of a revolution, and not have to prostitute their idiology to those who sneer at it. That revolution will be the culimation of frustration at the corrupt and broken system that has taken their vote, forced their vote, for someone they do not really support in order to get an insane man out of the White House. The irony is that these very same ones who hold these voters hostage to forcing them, had an opportunity to do so for four years, without holding the idiologists hostage and turning them off. They did not. Now, they sneer and now they pander and now they play this game of unreality in order to go to the middle--which for a lot of people, is not perceived as the middle, but is seen as the right.



No one should ever have to suffer the sneering of others, because they are aware of the right thing to do--ever.

[madfloridian]

72. I read this a third time. I think I agree on their being undependable.

Since my husband and I have always been Democrats, but have voted Republican in the past at times....I can see in a way what you mean.

I do think though that this time there will be more who, in your words, "see corporate supremacy in America as a cancer affecting the air, water, soil and soul of the nation and the world entire."

It is different than other times and other wars. This one is hitting home very hard. We have decided to vote for Kerry, but we have friends who will vote Nader rather than go Democrat (they are disgusted Republicans). Yes, there are many who fall into that category, and a lot will bolt if they think it will continue this way.....this corporate imperialism.

So I guess we agree. I do think you can not just assume all the groups I listed in my post are on board. This time we just can't.

Folks here at DU can rant and rave at me all they want, but it is a turning point. I feel it and I sense it here like nothing before. We have 4 neighbors who got war signs from their churches, pro-war signs. 3 of them are furious with Bush now, though once they said he was chosen by God. They will never ever vote Democratic though.

It is a problem with no solution, Will. I am not trying to be difficult. I am scared. We are pretty well off in our retirement, but for the first time in my life I am fearful it could change.

[greatauntoftriplets]

84. Excuse me. I am part of that Anti-War Leftist base.

I have voted in EVERY election since 1972 (first year I was eligible to vote nationally, since 18 year-olds were considered second class citizens then -- except to be cannon fodder in Viet Nam) and I have never voted for a republican except in the 1980 primary (voted Poppy because I feared Ray-goon).

But -- and this is a very big but -- I have voted numerous times holding my nose. As I will do this fall.

[mellowinman]

12. Vote for Bush!

It's what most of you did last time, and a part of why we have him today!

Bush! He'll bring you four more years of good times for America, and the people of Iraq.

Bush! He'll be a "uniter, not a divider."

Bush! He'll see there's "no child left behind."

Bush! He's the man! With Bush, life will be sunshine and roses forever.

Remember: NOT voting for Kerry is voting for BUSH!

[LWolf]

64. Bullshit. Absolute Bullshit.

1. Most of us did not "vote for Bush" last time. Most of us voted for Gore. A few may have voted for Nader. I'd like you to find one single bona-fide progressive that "voted for Bush" last time.

2. NOT voting for Kerry is not voting for Kerry; unless you pull the lever for Bush, you haven't voted for Bush. This is manipulative, dishonest campaign rhetoric. In other words, BULLSHIT.

Madfloridian has not suggested that anyone vote for Bush. He has not advocated voting for someone other than Kerry this November. It's ok with me if you don't want to consider the issue on the table. Feel free to deny. But don't use dishonest tactics to spin the conversation off topic. The topic, if I understand it correctly, is the issue of "ignoring" a large bloc of voters who traditionally vote dem, and whether or not that is a good idea.

For the record: I'll be voting for Kerry. As I've stated here at DU ad nauseum. And I agree with the pov expressed by Madfloridian here.

You do not make fun of potential voting blocs, and you do not marginalize them as unimportant. It is too dangerous. You do not attempt to ridicule or bully them into voting your way. As a matter of fact, I don't think any voter changes their mind or their vote to align with the campaign, or the campaigner, that treats them in that manner. I do think you can push people already committed to voting with you right out of your camp with that kind of treatment.

[madfloridian]

68. Thanks, you got the point. Well said.

You do not make fun of potential voting blocs, and you do not marginalize them as unimportant. It is too dangerous. You do not attempt to ridicule or bully them into voting your way. As a matter of fact, I don't think any voter changes their mind or their vote to align with the campaign, or the campaigner, that treats them in that manner. I do think you can push people already committed to voting with you right out of your camp with that kind of treatment.

[madfloridian]

15. I am voting for Kerry!! Do not misread my post. This is what I meant.

Baloney to those who misread this. You know exactly what I mean.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. I guess in part the deluge of "I am voting for Kerry with my nose held"...

...posts have begun to take a toll.

I wish people would just be a bit more optimistic. We have our candidate and his running mate and I'd like to see people just get behind the candidate.

I don't agree 100 percent with Kerry, either. But I have no problem supporting his candidacy 100 percent and promoting him.

I realize there is a lot of disappointment and outright anger from some corners and I agree that it accomplishs nothing, but I think the same is true when we make statements about "alienating the base" or "taking blocks for granted".

[madfloridian]

34. I will not be holding my nose.

You are so angry you are not really reading what I said. This forum makes fun of those who think issues count. There is thread after thread on this same kind of thing.

Issues do count.

I had a thread the other day where folks were saying the 4 groups I mentioned in my post, African Americans, 18-29 year olds, Low income, and single voters were already strongly Democrat and not needing to be wooed.

[Cleita]

16. Thanks for saying this,

and so eloquently too. :-)

[Q3JR4]

19. What really bothers me is the

FMA. It was rejected by the Democrats in the senate not because it was wrong, not because they believe that it's a civil rights issue. They rejected it because "United States law already defines marriage as the union of one man and one women." Fully 1/3 of individuals in the United States don't have a problem with the idea of gay marriage. Over 50% of the population support civil unions. The question that's been asked here is, where are THEIR representatives?

In the next election, I'm voting for Kerry. I am also spending the next three or four months to sign up 100 people who have never voted before. In so doing, I am attempting to give them the information they need to come to the "right" decision.

Now, if the Democrats do not come through with a more supportive tone on this civil rights issue, I can gaurantee you that I won't be doing any of this next election.

With an increasingly polarized electorate, you would think they would be scrambling to make sure OUR (gay America's) 3% of the vote will be there in the next cycle.

I certainly know I would be.

[Zhade]

23. Yes, it is.

However, you will never convince the DLC and war apologists of this obvious truth.

Guess we need another Viet Nam to wake more people up, since so many even in the Democratic party are still asleep - or too afraid of losing (and who can blame them) to admit that Dems can do wrong, too.

Sad.

[mellowinman]

30. I am convinced of the following:

1. The War in Iraq was a bad idea.
2. The Dems can do wrong.
3. The Dems are not nearly as liberal as I wish they were, man.
4. Not voting for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

I have problems. What is my biggest problem?

Bush.

What is my biggest problem?

Bush.

What is my biggest problem?

Bush.

What is my biggest problem?

Bush.

What is my biggest problem?

Bush.

What is my biggest problem?

Bush.

What is my biggest problem?

Bush...

(are you starting to see a pattern here?)

[Zhade]

86. Sure. You and I are pretty much in agreement.

The way I see it, b*sh is the main problem - until Kerry is elected.

Then I'm going to have to protest and work against HIM, if he actually follows through on the rightwing stances he's been taking.

[Kanary]

29. You're seeing the Party in it's death-throes

And DUers have been complicit in that.

Kanary

[mellowinman]

37. That is complete bullshit

There is not an ounce of truth in that statement. WTF are you talking about? Death throes.

Things looked a lot bleaker for the Democratic Party in 2000 and 2002 than they do now!

I am seeing a newly revitalized Democratic Party. I recommend coming aboard and helping the effort to facilitate that. Ebb and flow, baby.

Ebb went home, and Flo's cooking breakfast.

Me, I'm powerful hungry.

[Kanary]

43. Thank you for your well-reasoned response

:crazy:

You're helping to prove my point.......

Kanary, who is NOT your "baby", son......

[mellowinman]

45. Excuse me,

but is saying "you're seeing a party in its death-throes" an argument WORTHY of a well-reasoned response?

Well, IS IT?

Fucking explain HOW. Be sure to be well-reasoned in your explanation.

GO!

[Kanary]

46. You're excused

[mellowinman]

65. When are you going to articulate your point?

Seems to me, the ball is in your court.

[salonghorn70]

92. The Party Is Dying?

Mellowinman is right. You can't just say the party is dying without telling us what you mean. Last time I looked, we are on the verge of electing a President.

[emulatorloo]

35. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. . .

but his right wing base is very very very very happy with him. Please note he is neither compassionate nor conservative.

Politics 101, they all run to the center.

I would rather have the opportunity to protest the policies of President Kerry (he will likely at least listen)

Than protest the policies of President Bush (who doesnt care what I say) as he revels in his new "mandate," slashing and decimating the country

PS I can't think of more than a handful of DUers who were for the Iraq war. Actually I cant even think of a handful.


on edit grammar spelling

[Q]

59. Running to the center: also known as: lying your ass off...

...and then ruling this country anyway you want...as long as the ruling class agrees.

- Look...this is NEVER going to get BETTER as long as both Republicans and Democrats continue to consider WINNING more important than ethics and principles.

[emulatorloo]

61. Sadly this is not the time for moral purity - if we don't win we are

totally screwed. Bush who thinks he has a "mandate" is Bush unfettered and horrible, more horrible than anything I have seen.

[Dookus]

73. Well

you might feel better with a lot of principled losers, but you won't get squat with 'em.

You don't get to do ANYTHING if you don't win elections.

[QC]

91. That's an excellent point, and one so obvious that it shouldn't

be necessary to point it out all the time.

I think we're dealing here with something that Tom Frank has addressed very compellingly, namely the tendency of many so-called Leftists to view politics as a form of therapy. For these people, it's not about getting elected and making the world better--it's about making beautiful but doomed gestures of one's moral purity. When one approaches politics that way, then losing is a virtue, because it further demonstrates one's goodness.

Here's a good passage from one of his essays:

There is a grain of truth in the backlash stereotype of liberalism. Certain kinds of leftists really do vacation in Europe and drive Volvos and drink lattes. (Hell, almost everyone drinks lattes now.) And there is a small but very vocal part of the left that has nothing but contempt for the working class. Should you ever attend a meeting of a local animal rights organisation, or wander through the campus of an elite university, you will notice that certain kinds of left politics are indeed activities reserved for members of the educated upper- middle-class, for people who regard politics more as a personal therapeutic exercise than an effort to build a movement. For them, the left is a form of mildly soothing spirituality, a way of getting in touch with the deep authenticity of the downtrodden and of showing you care. Buttons and stickers desperately announce the liberal’s goodness to the world, as do his or her choice in consumer products. Leftist magazines treat protesting as a glamour activity, running photos of last month’s demo the way society magazines print pictures from the charity ball. There is even a brand of cologne called Activist.

Then there is that species of leftist who believes that being on the left is an inherited honour, a nobility of the blood. There is little point in trying to convert others to the cause, they will tell you, especially in benighted places like the deep midwest: you’re either born to it or you aren’t. This species of leftist will boast about the historical deeds of red-diaper babies or the excellent radical pedigree of so-and-so, son of such-and-such, utterly deaf to the repugnant similarities between what they are celebrating and simple aristocracy.

Leftists of these tendencies aren’t really interested in the catastrophic decline of the American left as a social force, in the drying up and blowing away of leftist social movements. If anything, this decline makes sense to them: the left is people in sympathy with the downtrodden, not the downtrodden themselves. It is a charity operation.

For them, having fewer people on the left isn’t a problem that might one day affect their material well-being, cost them their healthcare or their power in the workplace. Those things aren’t on the line for this species of liberal. Quite the contrary: having fewer people on the left makes the left more alluring to them. Superficial nonconformity is what the creative white-collar class values above all else, and the lonelier you are in political righteousness the more nonconformist, the more rebellious you are. Standing up against the flag-waving masses is the goal for this variety of liberal. Being on the left is not about building common cause with others: it’s about correcting others, about pointing out their shortcomings.

http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa

[greatauntoftriplets]

77. Did you buy that "compassionate conservative" crap???

Had you read much about *'s years as Texas governor?

[emulatorloo]

106. Of course not! I kwew all about W! So now I am wondering why some

DU'er ignore the MAJORITY of Kerry's record

and are instead picking a few (questionable?) quotes from AP

take them out of context,

and fly off the handle and say he is BUsh Lite

ON EDIT (not refering to madfloridian)

[Northwind]

40. What base?

What the hell makes the fundamentalist progressives think they are the base? Who appointed them the base? The base is the group the politician caters to. Perhaps, if the politicians are not catering to you, you are not the base.

[madfloridian]

47. Gotcha.

Let me understand you on this.

African Americans
18-29 age group
Lower income
Singles

And for good measure anti-war voices.

You are saying these are not the base. I have said they have been marginalized. Several people here have said they are the base and they will vote for sure for Democrats.....so they do not have to wooed.

Which is it? Hey, I don't want "catered to". I want to not be considered outside the party, not as important as the undecideds.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. Do you see me as a gay person saying the party is marginalizing me?

And it's interesting you left the gays out of your groups being taken for granted.

Why are you marginalizing us?

[madfloridian]

52. I call baloney on that. I mentioned the 4 groups who assumed as base.

In a thread here one day. You just want to argue. That was not my point. If you think this ardent Dean supporter is marginalizing gays, then you don't have a clue what we are about.

[Liberal Veteran]

58. No. Merely an object lesson in how easy it is to claim marginalization.

And BTW. I was also a Dean supporter, so when you say "we" you are presuming to speak for me.

[madfloridian]

60. That is a convoluted argument.

There is marginalization. The party is going after the swing votes.

For years the party has said let's all settle down, we need to get the swings and not offend the right wing.

I will repeat. We are doing our part, but I reserve the right to criticize any of my leaders. I am sorry you feel that is not important anymore.

[Liberal Veteran]

62. You have every right to criticise and speak up.

There is a difference however in saying "I don't you are giving this issue enough attention" or "I disagree with you on this issue" and saying "My vote is being taken for granted!" or "I'm being marginalized".

Believe me, as a gay man, the party has certainly turned it's back on me more than once (Don't ask...Don't Tell, DOMA), but I realize also that if my voice is one of millions each saying something different and that I must nudge my party.

It just kind of irks me when people get their backs up to the point of saying "I'm taking my ball and going home!" when doing so leads to an even greater loss.

And what really pisses me off is that Kerry has a fairly liberal voting record and people are already criticising him for not being liberal enough even before he's taken office.

Believe me, the right wingers are all too happy to divide and tear down our party and our candidate. They don't need our help in doing so.

[Malva Zebrina]

57. guess the base is the Republicans then eom

[BillZBubb]

49. I think you have created a straw man here.

To my knowledge making fun of the base hasn't occurred. Sure a few posters may have made some ridiculous comments, but so what that happens on any issue.

As for marginalizing the base, if pointing out that Nader is being used by the Repugs again is marginalization, well I'm guilty. But anyone who actively supports Nader now is not part of any Democratic base.

Kerry is running a very smart campaign. He knows that the Democratic base is pretty solidly with him. He should not spend time, money, and effort convincing them to vote for him. After 4 years of dimwit, they should be on board. He should be free to campaign right on Shrub's left shoulder if need be.

To win a landslide and a mandate, he's got to get the middle of the road people, the moderates, the undecideds AND convince some Repugs that not voting for VacationBoy is OK because Kerry won't be the second coming of Karl Marx. That's where he should be putting all his effort. It's the people like US who should be making sure the base stays with him. It shouldn't be a hard sell.

Bush* on the other hand is having to move farther right just to hold his base and energize them. He's struggling. His only hope is to steal another one by getting all his base to vote and suppress or divide the Democratic base and independents. Don't play into Rove's hands by attacking Dems for ignoring their base--we are in this fight for a big win.

[madfloridian]

53. Middle of road, moderates(that's me), undecideds, and Repugs.

That is where you said his effort should be. I am not sure I agree with you on that. You did not mention one single group that is traditionally Democrat.

Everyone seems to think we can worry about them later. I am just not sure of that.

[NNadir]

50. Um, Nader is not our base. Our base is much bigger than 2%.

Neither does our base consist of rich Republican shills.

I am a former Deaner, and I don't at all consider myself a part of an insulted base. Neither does Howard Dean who is working just as hard for the party as we all should.

I think that our base does not consist of people whose put their bruised little egos before their country and their planet. Our base consists of people who care about the greater community, the future, and who think originally.

[madfloridian]

54. I am working hard as well. I do not have a bruised ego. Did it again.

We donated a considerable amount to Kerry, we have given a lot to Democracy for America, we have donated to candidates nationwide, and we are working hard for one here.

If you choose to misread my well-thought-out post, then do so.

But you just did what I said was being done. You implied I was none of the things you are. How very very unfair!

[AP]

56. It's also bad for the base to force the party to alienate people in the...

...middle because they won't play as a team.

I'm way more the base of the party then I am the middle of the spectrum, but the last thing I'm going to do is hold the party hostage to my individual policy concerns.

I want to win, so I want to set the party free to fight for the middle.

[Rowdyboy]

63. Let me add a few groups to your "base"

Gays
educators
environmentalists
abortion rights groups
labor (yes, even big, burly teamsters)
soccer moms
academicians/intellectuals/professionals
Hispanics
Asian-Americans
Arab-Americans
Native Americans
urban voters
and, yes, even the evil DLC

Our base is huge. There is no way everyone will receive priority. You can't give 50 different voting blocks priority. You give as much as you can to each without offending and driving away the others. Then you hope like Hell enough people stay so that it totals more than 50% of the vote. Otherwise, you lose, and it was all for nothing.

[DemBones DemBones]

69. Just who is marginalizing the base?

People talking shit on DU does not mean the party is marginalizing the base.

And, as rowdyboy points out, the base is might broad and disparate. No platform or candidate will be equally pleasing to every segment of our base.

I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary and continue to support him for greater leadership in the party but I'm not going to sulk because he's not the nominee and the platform isn't anti-war. Furthermore, I'll tell anyone who is sulking about it that being a one-issue voter doesn't make any sense in a time when we are, as Senator Byrd titled his new book, Losing America.

The primaries are behind us. John Kerry is going to be our nominee and has chosen John Edwards as his vice-president. Thus, I think it's inappropriate "to continue to post Dean's accomplishments," or the accomplishments of Kucinich or any candidate except John Kerry and John Edwards.

We need to talk about what Kerry and Edwards can do for the American people, including every segment of the Democratic base. Bill Clinton talked about the difference between our party and the GOP, saying Democrats want to "fall in love" while Republicans "fall in line." So what if we're not all "in love" with John Kerry? It's time for us to "fall in line" and support Kerry.

DUers, support Kerry/Edwards and quit yer bitchin'. Face reality and deal with it. The choices are Kerry or Bush*. Period. Nader is a protest vote in a year when the luxury of a protest vote should not tempt anyone. Harry Truman said, "Always vote for the better man. He is the Democrat." What more do you really need to know?

[madfloridian]

70. Your post just made my whole point.

You know I am voting for Kerry, and I have said so many times. You are calling what I say to be bullshit. I do not appreciate that, and you just marginalized me.

[Rowdyboy]

74. So the mere fact that Dembones disagrees with you

equates to her calling what you say bullshit and marginalizing you? Thats not fair. Unless you two have a history of which I am unaware, thats simply untrue. I thought her response was polite and on target with no bullying.

If you look hard enough, you can always find fault. Its easy. Now is the time to seek our commonality, not to emphasize our differences and disagreements. We have a president to elect and its time to get those SOB's Bush and Cheney out of our government housing.

I want my country back and I want it back this year.

[madfloridian]

75. You know, count the times I said I would vote for Kerry.

However, they are not appealing to many of the people who are traditionally Democrats. It is a little misleading to accuse me of not wanting disagreement, isn't it?

I am sincerely concerned that they are concentrating on the voters who are not traditionally Democratic at the expense of those who are.

The whole post implied I was trying to cause trouble. Read my original post, then read hers. Ok? The gist of the post was to quit bitchin, and do the right thing.

Things are not right. Too many people are telling me to hush and fall in line. That worries me.

How many times do you need to hear that my husband and I are voting for Kerry? Shall I tell you again? Shall I tell you again that we donated to him?

Read my original post, then read hers.

[Rowdyboy]

76. I believe you are voting for Kerry...So am I and my partner and

everyone else I can get to who has enough sense to cast an intelligent vote. Clark was my first choice, then Graham, then Edwards, then Dean, then Kerry. But Kerry was the party's choice.

But to say that you're unhappily, grudgingly voting for Kerry is going to upset some people here. Its three months til the election and most of us here are Democrats. Its time to drop the personal gripes and go for unity, at least in my opinion.

[Liberal Veteran]

78. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

Exactly.

It's time to find common ground.

[madfloridian]

82. No, you are wrong.

You did not read my post at all, did you? I never said those things at all. That is why things are so out of control here. People do not read what others wrote.

Your quote:
SNIP...""But to say that you're unhappily, grudgingly voting for Kerry is going to upset some people here. Its three months til the election and most of us here are Democrats. Its time to drop the personal gripes and go for unity, at least in my opinion.""

Please just read what I said. That is all I ask.

[QC]

81. If all it takes to make you feel margarinized is

a few remarks on an anonymous chatboard, then perhaps you should abandon politics for something better suited to those with extremely delicate sensibilities. Something like china painting, maybe, or tatting.

[madfloridian]

83. Ding ding. Another one.

I think more is going on here than I previously believed. I made a thoughtful post, so something more is at play here.

[QC]

85. What was so thoughtful about it?

It amounted to little more than, "Some of you are not making me feel sufficiently loved and appreciated, sniff, sniff."

Perhaps that qualifies as deep thinking in some circles, but I see nothing particularly thoughtful or profound about it.

If I had my way, we would run a candidate who supports full same-sex marriage rights and socialized medicine, but such a candidate would not win out here, in the real world where the rest of us live, thus leaving us at the tender mercies of someone like Bush. So for now I'm willing to settle for civil unions and some sort of health insurance subsidy.

That's the way practical politics works, and practical politics is the only kind I'm interested in. I do not approach politics as therapy or a means of gaining personal validation and love, as so many here seem to.

[madfloridian]

87. That is what I mean.

That says I am not a deep thinker. That I don't know anything about anything. That is what this party is becoming very quickly, and it has not one blessed thing to do with me.

See, on this thread, I have had my points in my original post...which, incidentally, despite your description....IS intelligent and well-thought-out....my points were made by others who responded to me in such condescending ways.

You have said so well, what I could not say. You just said we don't count unless we are hard-nosed and mean-spirited.

I am now vindicated many times over in this thread. It is a shame.

[QC]

88. Is it fun playing the martyr?

It must be, considering how popular it is lately. That Joan of Arc was a rank amateur compared to some of us here.

Nobody said that you don't count, so you can drop the melodrama. What some of us have said, and I agree with them, is that this election is not all about you and your feelings--or, for that matter, me and my feelings. It's a lot bigger than that.

[madfloridian]

89. Did you read how many times I said I would vote for Kerry?

That I said we had donated? What you are doing is exactly what my post was about, the original one. Just exactly.

Martyr is only one of the words used now against those who dare have an opinion that differs from the DLC mindset.

The whiner, martyr, loser kind of thing that is directed toward us is based on right wing talking points used by the GOP starting in the 2000 election fiasco.

I am so used to it. I do not think we should take the base for granted, and I said so. That was not an attack on anyone. It was not a bid for sympathy.

Every post you make like that one just vindicates me for my position.

[QC]

90. If you're "used to it,"

then why this tedious little song and dance about the whole thing?

And yes, this martyr business is precisely that and has long since gotten tiresome. Every time someone here says something and encounters some difference of opinion, we get this same routine: you are trying to silence me, this is censorship, why do you not respect differences of opinion, etc. It's as predictable as the rising of the sun.

It's also silly. Free speech does not mean that one is entitled to unanimity. The same principle of free speech that lets you express your opinions lets others express their disagreement with those opinions. And that is what has happened here, as much as you would like to point to the reaction you have garnered as some sort of moral victory. You expressed an opinion and others disagreed with it. That's the way it works.

[madfloridian]

93. Some would say an obtuse attack using right wing talking points.

Enough said. When people call free speech a "tedious little song and dance" then I get worried.

I was expressing a view with no attacks on anyone. Just worried about heading too far to the right.

I think that is a new one: "a tedious little song and dance."

[QC]

96. No, the tedious little song and dance

is all this tearful melodrama about pure, noble souls being cruelly broken on the wheel by wicked people bearing "right wing talking points" and all that.

You expressed an opinion. I and many others disagreed with it. Simple enough.

Kerry wasn't my first choice either. I was for Dean, then Clark, then Edwards. I ended up with Kerry by default. I wasn't thrilled about it, but that's life--I also voted for Walter Mondale, Paul Simon, Michael Dukakis and Al Gore and saw them all lose. It sucks but that's life. But now that we have a nominee, there's no point in picking him to death about how he is not everything one could ever hope for. When the house is burning down around you, that's not the time to pick out new drapes.

Besides, I think it's pointless to believe, as many of us do, that if we can just get the perfect candidate elected, then our work is done. We have to stay after them once they're in and ride them hard, demand that they do the right thing. It's up to us to make John Kerry a good president. As Tony Kushner says it:

"The country doesn't elect great leaders. It elects fucked-up people who for reasons of ego want to run the world. Then the citizenry makes them become great. FDR was a plutocrat. In a certain sense he wasn't so different from George W. Bush, and he could have easily been Herbert Hoover, Part II. But he was a smart man, and the working class of America told him that he had to be the person who saved this country. It happened with Lyndon Johnson, too, and it could have happened with Bill Clinton, but we were so relieved after 12 years of Reagan and Bush that we sat back and carped."

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/qa/2003/11/ma_586_01.html

Here's another great passage from that same article:

If you really believe that it's your place to leave the world a better place than it was when you arrived, then how do you get the power? In this country, the most powerful country on earth, you get it by voting the right people into power. There are means of getting the power out of the hands of the very rich and the very wicked. It still flabbergasts me that people didn't see this during the last presidential election. We had had 12 years of Reagan and Bush to prepare us for this outcome. It couldn't have been clearer who we were dealing with. George W. Bush was -- is -- a little robot programmed by his daddy to punish Saddam Hussein and get as much money for the petrochemical bandits. It's absolutely jaw-dropping that Democrats saw that and decided instead that they wanted to send a message to their own party that they weren't happy with it for some relatively minor offense. Why didn't we turn out in vast numbers for Gore? Why did we vote for Ralph Nader or not at all? We would absolutely not be in Iraq today if we had a Democratic president in the White House, and I don't need to know any more than that.

[madfloridian]

98. "tedious little song and dance" implies my views are not important.

I did not start the thread with attacks. I posted intelligently. Only a few took it any other way. If you find my views tedious, then we really do have a problem in this country. I am backing off when someone is not reading what I wrote and is just not understanding.

I am voting for Kerry.

Backing away.

[QC]

102. Yes, you did begin your thread with an attack,

namely an assertion that those of us who believe that we should present a unified front going into the election are "marginalizing the base."

You further stated that many people here have said that minority and low-income voters, etc. do not count, and that people who opposed the war are being made fun of. Yet, despite repeated requests to provide just one example of these things, you have not done so.

Show me that important constituencies are being told to go to hell, and I will join you in comedemning this. Show me a DUer making fun of people who opposed the war, as about 99% of us here did, and I will likewise speak out against it. But, frankly, I don't think those things are happening here. And it is all this melodramatic fuss and bother over something that hasn't actually happened that I consider a "tedious little song and dance."

[madfloridian]

104. Do your own "tedious song and dance." I had my say.

Sometimes we have to just quit.

[Sugarbleus]

71. In the very near future, for the betterment of America...

We need more than two parties!!

[Kanary]

95. Yeah, we need at least one SANE one

[Pastiche423]

97. One that represents PEOPLE

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. But as long as TWO are on the left and ONE major one is on the right

get used to BEING more marginalized than you feel....I understand that we have many pseudo-intellectuals here who read and parrot the Chomsky's of the world...it's a shame they can't add...on one side you have approximately 50% of the vote...on the other you have approximately 50% but it is divided 47% and 3%...so who wins?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. You and I have always found some common ground on which to communicate

I would like to make a couple assertions:

It is not "good" to marginalize anyone.

It is not REASONABLE to categorize this board on the posts of a couple people who may have marginalized significant voting blocks as asserted in your first paragraph.

HOWEVER, the Democratic party has ALWAYS consisted of large groups with varying goals who can often find themselves at lagerheads..a perfect example here in California would be Native Americans interested currently in selling their land for mining purposes ( a significant financial part of the Dem base) and environmentalists interested in them NOT doing that. We have ALWAYS had competing interests in our party.

One important thing to consider when someone USES a word such as a poster did today in describing some as delittantes is DOES THE SHOE FIT. There is one particular poster on this thread FOR WHOM THE SHOE FITS...she would like to pretend she is holding us all hostage with her temper tantrums...frankly, she ONLY comes to DU anymore from places UNMENTIONABLE to stir shit...her posts stick to a script that is worse than tiring....then she runs off and cries to Skinner when she gets called on it...she should simply come clean and admit she visits DU solely out of a desire to be destructive...and cause shit and play victim.

I am CLEAR you are not doing that...you are offering wisdom....however, truth be told...while NO PART of the base deserves to be marginalized...certain people WITHIN those parts of the base deserve to be as ignored and discredited as they are becoming....incessant bellyaching with no commitment to support a change or contribute to it from within drags US ALL down.

Who would you rather be in a foxhole with if this really is it? Chronic whiners? Or people with an ounce of moxy?

[madfloridian]

103. I can go along with most of that.

On both sides of the aisle. I only posted it because I am sincerely concerned about my country. I do think the war will figure in most powerfully, because it is starting to hit people in their pocketbooks. We are well off, and we are getting concerned. I have always felt that our teacher retirement pay plus our solid investments would keep us ok.

I don't feel that way anymore, and people are figuring the war is draining our nation's resources. I am afraid that GOP folks disgusted with Bush will bolt to a 3rd party. I am equally afraid that Dems will not think it through as hubby and I have, and they will bolt to 3rd party.

I appreciate your response, and I take it in the spirit in which you meant it.

Our 16 year old granddaughter is visiting from Iowa. She went to the Outfoxed house party with us, and the host let her bring home the DVD to view again. She is taking political science, and she is utterly fascinated with the video.

She is afraid, but not of the terrorists. She is afraid of the Bush family. So we know what we have to do. But somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to take a real stand on this war issue. It is becoming an economic issue, and the young people know it. She knew it. She is afraid. She says her friends in Iowa are terrified of the draft, and they don't understand why our congress voted on the war.

Someday our country will have to answer to these young people. I watched her tonight, saw things through her eyes, and I nearly cried in front of her. People have to take responsibility for what they do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. I find no bone of contention with that and agree

We have a rather unique manipulation going on in this country. I would venture to guess that MANY that saw F911 were as flabberghasted as your granddaughter was tonight.
But until they saw it, they wouldn't believe it or feared it was true and didn't want to look.

That is the muck we are compaigning through right now. It doesn't help when the muck being thrown by some on our side is as dishonest as the muck tossed at us by them.

I would have supported this candidate regardless of who won...even Lieberman...I know you have made it clear you support the party and are concerned...at this point, there are people here who have made it clear they will not support us....we both know the danger of that, even in a state they presume is "safe."